Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-28-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 1. The petitioner herein is an M.Sc. which degree she has obtained from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi. The petitioner claims that she has been remained involved in the work related to patent, drafting, filing and prosecuting application for grant of patent registration by the Patent Office under the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and has vast experience. However, she has not been able to get herself registered as Patent Agent under the Act because her repeated attempts to pass qualifying examination for Patent Agents have remained unsuccessful. This qualifying exam is in two parts, namely, written test and viva voce examination. Though she has exhibited excellent performance in so far as written test is concerned, as she has not been able to secure minimum 50% marks in the viva voce examination, which is the requirement of Rule 110 of the Patents Rules, she is treated as unqualified. It is for this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-24-2012
A.K. SIKRI1. Very brief yet crisp order dated 30th June, 2010 passed by the Copyright Board on an application preferred by the respondent no.2 herein under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is the subject matter of the present appeal. The respondent no. 2 had filed the said application for expunction of registration number A-62685/02 granted by the Registrar in favour of the appellant herein. Before we take note of the basis on which expunction of the registration was sought, it would be apposite to find out what this registration is about. The appellant which is a registered partnership firm with its office in Kathmandu, Nepal claims that it is a well established and renowned firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of sports shoes and footwear since 1990. It also boost about the excellent quality of its product which has demand in Nepal as well as in India. The goods are manufactured and marketed under the trade mark „GOLD STAR‟alongwith the side tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, with the allegations to the effect that the respondent has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, passed in Guardian Case No.66/2010 and also the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13.10.2011 in CC No.332/1, and of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.10.2011 passed in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) proceedings. 2. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, they have four sons. The petitioner has preferred a divorce petition against the respondent. 3. The petitioner filed a custody petition before the Guardianship Judge, Saket, New Delhi. In the petition the petitioner stated that he resides with his three elder children at C-87, Anand Niket...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-17-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd July, 2011 passed by the Armed Force Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.450/2010, titled as „Ramphal, Store Petty Officer v. Union of India and Ors.‟, dismissing his application seeking the quashing of orders dated 12th June, 2009, 23rd September, 2009 and 29th January, 2010 and declining his prayer of declaring him to have passed out as Store Assistant-I (SA-I) instead of Store Assistant-II (SA-II) and allowing him to maintain his original seniority w.e.f. 19th May, 1988 when he had enrolled. 2. The Tribunal had held that since the petitioner had claimed the seniority viz-a-viz other persons, who had not been impleaded before the Tribunal, it could not examine the averments of the petitioner seeking seniority above them. The Tribunal had also declined to grant the petitioner seniority over the non-impleaded individuals, in view of the averments made by the respondents in their counter affidavit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-14-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.Rev.P. 670/2010 Date of Decision: 14.02.2012 DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE ...... PETITIONER Through: Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Advocate with Mr.Sushil, Advocate. Versus ARUN KUMAR JUNEJA and ORS. ...... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Sonam Nagrath, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. The present revision petition is against the order of the LD ACMM discharging the Respondents herein under section 245 CrPC..2. The brief facts necessitating the present revision petition are that acting on intelligence that large quantity of ball bearing were being smuggled from Nepal into Delhi, the DRI kept surveillance in and around Delhi. On 04.08.1992, the DRI intercepted a truck in Delhi containing empty glass bottles and brought the same to the DRI office where it was rummaged in the presence of two independent witnesses. The panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses. The driver of the truck, Shri Ghama Prasad along wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-10-2012
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged letter dated 12.3.2010 and sought a direction to the respondents to get him medically examined by an independent Medical Board at Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi or at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, or in any other Govt. Hospital as per the Medical requirement of the Railways for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (hereinafter referred to as ALP) and the case of the applicant may be considered for his appointment to the post of ALP on the basis of the medical report given by an independent Medical Board. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant are in the year 2008 Railway Recruitment Board Chandigarh had invited applications for the post of Apprentices Assistant Loco Pilot had applied for it and was declared successful and sent offer of appointment vide letter dated 25.9.2009 (page 12). Thereafter, he was sent for medical examination vide letter dated 5.11.2009. Applicant was declared unfit in A-1 category (page 13)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-08-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS. 7/2006, 2/2006, 3/2006, 4,2006, 5/2006, 8/2006, 10/2006, 11/2006, 17/2006 and 22/2006 Reserved on: 28th November, 2011 % Date of Decision: 8th February, 2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate. VERSUS M/S JAGAT NOVEL EXHIBITORS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through Mr. Kaanan Kapur, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.: The aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) relate to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1992-93 to 1995-96. The respondent-assessee is common; Jagat Novel Exhibitors Private Limited..2. In ITA Nos. 4/2006, 7/2006, 11/2006, 17/2006 and 22/2006, the following substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission:- ITA Nos. 7/2006 + connected matters Page 1 of 32 "Whether the ITAT w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-07-2012
22 and 32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 07.02.2012 % W.P.(C) 4166/2011 DASHEMSH SEWA SOCIETY AND ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinash K. Mishra, Advocate. versus LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1. to.3. Mr. G.K. Bharti and Mr. Jagjit Chhabra, Advocates for the respondent No. 4/DSGMC. AND W.P.(C) 311/2012 HARMOHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI and ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing Counsel and Mohd. Aslam Khan, Advocate for the respondents No.1. and .2. Mr. G.K. Bharti and Mr. Jagjit Chhabra, Advocates for the respondent No. 3/DSGMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral).1. These two writ petitions have been preferred primarily to seek a writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities namely W.P.(C.) Nos. 4166/2011 and 311/2012 Page 1 of 14 the Hon'ble Lieutenant Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Feb-07-2012
Petitioner vide this petition has prayed that cut-off date mentioned in the Notification dated 29.09.2009 to the extent of pre and post distinctions of 01.01.2006 for grant of disability pension to those persons who have voluntarily retired prior to 2006 may be quashed. Petitioner was commissioned in Indian Army on 27.12.1982 in Army Medical Corps after having been found fit in all respect. He served with various medical units of Indian Army from 1983 to 1996. During 1996, due to peculiar nature of service and hazardous atmosphere, petitioner suffered two disabilities namely Tear Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Medical Meniscus (Left) and subsequently he was placed in low medical category S1 H1 A3 P1 E1. On account of disabilities, petitioners movements became restricted causing difficulty in performance of his normal duties, therefore, he sought Page premature retirement after 15 years of service. Respondents vide order dated 07.01.1997 approved the request of the petitioner for premat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-16-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.585/2009 % Judgment reserved on : 8th December, 2011 Judgment delivered on: 16th January, 2012 ISHWAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Anil Soni, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J..1. The instant appeal is being filed while assailing the judgment dated 08.07.2009 whereby, the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860..2. Vide order on sentence dated 11.07.2009, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of ` 7,000/-..3. The facts in brief of the case are that on 03.11.2008 on receipt of PCR Call, vide DD No. 19A, W/ASI Rakesh Kumari reached Surya Temple, Kabir Nagar, Street No.5, Shahdra, Delhi, where H.C. Karan Singh and Ct. Anil Kumar were already present. Smt. Sarita gave her statement to W/ASI Rakesh Kumari regarding commission of rape Crl.A.585/2009 Page 1 of 2...
Tag this Judgment!